Much of President Barack Obama's second-term agenda revolves around narrowing the growing gap between rich and poor and strengthening the middle class. The centerpiece of this plan is an increase in the minimum wage to $9 an hour by 2015, after which it would be indexed to inflation.

There's little reason to think that the GOP-led House of Representatives will go along with this, but it's the right thing to do.

We got another reminder of that massive gap last week. The Dow Jones Industrial Average barreled to a record high, fueled by corporate profits.

How can unemployment remain near 8 percent -- even with February's significant job gains -- and wages stay low when profits are so high? It's all intertwined, economists say. Many industries can hire cheaply because of an ample labor supply. And workers are improving productivity, so employers can hire fewer people as well as pay them less.

Advertisement

The New York Times reported last week that corporate profits represented 14.2 percent of national income in the third quarter of 2012, the largest proportion since 1950. Employees got 61.7 percent, the lowest in more than 40 years.

Congress has failed to keep the minimum wage at a reasonable level. At $7.25 since 2009, it would need to be $10.59 to match its purchasing power in 1968. Indexing it to inflation would end the periodic political games over the wage while providing more certainty to businesses about their costs, which is presumably why Mitt Romney endorsed it during the campaign.

The federal government classifies 10.5 million Americans as "working poor," including 4.1 million full-time workers. Their ranks have been swollen by an economy that's funneled 98 percent of all income gains to the top 10 percent of earners since 1980, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

Opponents say the wage increase will just lead to fewer jobs overall, but the evidence is mixed. When workers have a little extra to spend, businesses may hire more people to meet the demand.

The University of Chicago's IGM Forum recently surveyed 38 top economists from across the political spectrum. On whether raising the minimum wage would make it "noticeably harder for low-skilled workers to find employment," the economists were divided: 34 percent said yes, 32 percent said no and the rest were uncertain.

But when asked if the benefits of Obama's proposal outweighed its drawbacks, making the policy "desirable," fully 47 percent said they agreed it was desirable and only 11 percent disagreed. The rest had no opinion or were uncertain.

Opposing an increase in today's minimum wage really means, let's face it, opposing any minimum wage. But people who hold that view rarely offer a policy alternative to reduce inequality. The only solution, these folks say, is to let the free market work and wait for the wealth to trickle down.

It doesn't take a survey of top economists to understand how laughable that is.